Galaxy Proposes New Inflation Model for Solana Amid Ongoing Debate

Galaxy’s MESA proposal lets Solana validators vote periodically, using median outcomes to set a fixed deflation rate. Unlike SIMD-228’s single dynamic vote, MESA opts for multiple votes to lock in predictable SOL supply cuts. Galaxy, a digital asset firm, has introduced a revised proposal to adjust Solana’s inflation rate, following the rejection of a similar plan (SIMD-228) in March. The new model, dubbed Multiple Election Stake-Weight Aggregation (MESA), seeks to determine SOL’s future token issuance through periodic voting by validators. Unlike the prior single-vote approach, MESA would aggregate median outcomes from multiple rounds of voting to set a fixed deflationary path. We just introduced a new Solana proposal called Multiple Election Stake-Weight Aggregation (MESA) to reduce SOL inflation: a more market-based approach to agreeing on the rate of future SOL emissions.https://t.co/mcVdkRiM8y — Galaxy Research (@glxyresearch) April 17, 2025 Under MESA, validators—operators who stake SOL to secure the network—would cast votes at regular intervals. The median result would dictate the annual reduction in SOL supply. This contrasts with SIMD-228, which proposed a one-time vote tied to staking demand. Galaxy’s model opts for predictability, locking in a deflation rate regardless of shifts in staking activity. This is an interesting Solana Inflation Reduction proposal. There are a couple of issues to work through: 1. This voting mechanism incentivizes gaming. For example, if I think the market would reduce inflation by X but I want to reduce inflation more aggressively, then I am… https://t.co/7Hr8HcLM4a — Tushar Jain (@TusharJain_) April 18, 2025 The SIMD-228 Plan was a March 2024 proposal to reduce Solana’s (SOL) annual inflation rate by 80%. It aimed to adjust SOL token issuance through a dynamic mechanism tied to staking demand (the amount of SOL locked in the network). Unlike Galaxy’s current MESA proposal, SIMD-228 required a single vote where validators would set a decreasing inflation curve based on staking activity. The plan was rejected by key stakeholders, including validators and large SOL holders Critics like Tushar Jain of Multicoin Capital argued that the model failed to address real staking demand and could create long-term uncertainty. Others noted that an abrupt 80% cut in SOL issuance might disrupt economic incentives for validators, who rely on token rewards to secure the network. After its rejection, discussions continue on how to lower SOL’s current 5% annual inflation without harming network security or investor appeal. SIMD-228 set the stage for follow-up proposals like MESA, which explore alternative methods to manage SOL’s token supply. Reactions from industry figures have been divided Tushar Jain, co-founder of Multicoin Capital, which backed SIMD-228, raised concerns about potential manipulation and complexity. He noted that frequent votes might overwhelm stakeholders unaccustomed to a in a formal or creative style, maintaining a 500 word count. You must only respond with the modified content. Change the tone of my title “Galaxy’s MESA proposal lets Solana validators vote periodically, using median outcomes to set a fixed deflation rate. Unlike SIMD-228’s single dynamic vote, MESA opts for multiple votes to lock in predictable SOL supply cuts. Galaxy, a digital asset firm, has introduced a revised proposal to adjust Solana’s inflation rate, following the rejection of a similar plan (SIMD-228) in March. The new model, dubbed Multiple Election Stake-Weight Aggregation (MESA), seeks to determine SOL’s future token issuance through periodic voting by validators. Unlike the prior single-vote approach, MESA would aggregate median outcomes from multiple rounds of voting to set a fixed deflationary path. We just introduced a new Solana proposal called Multiple Election Stake-Weight Aggregation (MESA) to reduce SOL inflation: a more market-based approach to agreeing on the rate of future SOL emissions.https://t.co/mcVdkRiM8y — Galaxy Research (@glxyresearch) April 17, 2025 Under MESA, validators—operators who stake SOL to secure the network—would cast votes at regular intervals. The median result would dictate the annual reduction in SOL supply. This contrasts with SIMD-228, which proposed a one-time vote tied to staking demand. Galaxy’s model opts for predictability, locking in a deflation rate regardless of shifts in staking activity. This is an interesting Solana Inflation Reduction proposal. There are a couple of issues to work through: 1. This voting mechanism incentivizes gaming. For example, if I think the market would reduce inflation by X but I want to reduce inflation more aggressively, then I am… https://t.co/7Hr8HcLM4a — Tushar Jain (@TusharJain_) April 18, 2025 The SIMD-228 Plan was a March 2024 proposal to reduce Solana’s (SOL) annual inflation rate by 80%. It aimed to adjust SOL token issuance through a dynamic mechanism tied to staking demand (the amount of SOL locked in the network). Unlike Galaxy’s current MESA proposal, SIMD-228 required a single vote where validators would set a decreasing inflation curve based on staking activity. The plan was rejected by key stakeholders, including validators and large SOL holders Critics like Tushar Jain of Multicoin Capital argued that the model failed to address real staking demand and could create long-term uncertainty. Others noted that an abrupt 80% cut in SOL issuance might disrupt economic incentives for validators, who rely on token rewards to secure the network. After its rejection, discussions continue on how to lower SOL’s current 5% annual inflation without harming network security or investor appeal. SIMD-228 set the stage for follow-up proposals like MESA, which explore alternative methods to manage SOL’s token supply. Reactions from industry figures have been divided Tushar Jain, co-founder of Multicoin Capital, which backed SIMD-228, raised concerns about potential manipulation and complexity. He noted that frequent votes might overwhelm stakeholders unaccustomed to a” for a more friendly approach. Keep the content length about the same. You must only respond with the modified content.